Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 203 views

    G.R. No. 233922 (Galang v. Peakhold)

    Uploaded by

    Marry Lasheras
    This case involves a complaint filed by Galang to annul a deed of real estate mortgage on her property that was allegedly forged or falsified without her knowledge or consent. While the annulment case was pending, Peakhold filed an ex-parte petition for a writ of possession over the property, which was granted by the trial court. Galang challenged this, but the petition was dismissed on the ground of forum shopping. The Supreme Court ruled that the annulment case was proper to determine the validity of the mortgage documents and did not constitute forum shopping, as the cases involved different causes of action and reliefs. It remanded the annulment case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 233922 (Galang v. Peakhold)

    Uploaded by

    Marry Lasheras
    203 views2 pages
    This case involves a complaint filed by Galang to annul a deed of real estate mortgage on her property that was allegedly forged or falsified without her knowledge or consent. While the annulment case was pending, Peakhold filed an ex-parte petition for a writ of possession over the property, which was granted by the trial court. Galang challenged this, but the petition was dismissed on the ground of forum shopping. The Supreme Court ruled that the annulment case was proper to determine the validity of the mortgage documents and did not constitute forum shopping, as the cases involved different causes of action and reliefs. It remanded the annulment case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Original Title

    G.R. No. 233922 [Galang v. Peakhold]

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a complaint filed by Galang to annul a deed of real estate mortgage on her property that was allegedly forged or falsified without her knowledge or consent. While the annulment case was pending, Peakhold filed an ex-parte petition for a writ of possession over the property, which was granted by the trial court. Galang challenged this, but the petition was dismissed on the ground of forum shopping. The Supreme Court ruled that the annulment case was proper to determine the validity of the mortgage documents and did not constitute forum shopping, as the cases involved different causes of action and reliefs. It remanded the annulment case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    203 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 233922 (Galang v. Peakhold)

    Uploaded by

    Marry Lasheras
    This case involves a complaint filed by Galang to annul a deed of real estate mortgage on her property that was allegedly forged or falsified without her knowledge or consent. While the annulment case was pending, Peakhold filed an ex-parte petition for a writ of possession over the property, which was granted by the trial court. Galang challenged this, but the petition was dismissed on the ground of forum shopping. The Supreme Court ruled that the annulment case was proper to determine the validity of the mortgage documents and did not constitute forum shopping, as the cases involved different causes of action and reliefs. It remanded the annulment case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    G.R. No.

    233922, January 24, 2018

    MA. VICTORIA M. GALANG v. PEAKHOLD FINANCE


    CORPORATION AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
    CALOOCAN CITY

    FACTS:

    This case stemmed from a complaint for annulment of deed of


    real estate mortgage and foreclosure proceedings filed by
    Galang against respondent Peakhold Finance Corporation
    (Peakhold) before the RTC of Caloocan City. Essentially, the
    complaint alleged that: (a) Galang is the registered owner of
    a 150-square meter (sq. m.) lot located at Deparo, Caloocan
    City, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title; (b) the
    subject lot was mortgaged to Peakhold without her knowledge
    and consent; (c) Peakhold foreclosed the subject lot, and
    eventually, acquired the same via an auction sale; and (d) as
    such, the mortgage must be annulled as her signature in the
    mortgage document was forged or falsified.While the
    Annulment Case was pending, Peakhold filed an Ex-Parte
    Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession over the subject lot
    to which Galang filed her opposition. RTC granted Peakhold's
    Ex-Parte Petition and ordered the issuance of a writ of
    possession in favor of Peakhold. Galang filed a Petition for
    Relief from Judgment contending that the Ex-Parte Petition is
    not summary in nature and should have been threshed out in
    an adversarial proceeding, as it essentially deals with the
    validity of the subject deed.Peakhold, through a Motion to
    Dismiss, sought the dismissal of the Petition for Relief Case on
    the ground of forum shopping which was granted. Galang filed
    a motion for reconsideration but was denied so she elevated
    the matter to the CA via a petition for certiorari and
    mandamus.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the Annulment Case to nullify the alleged


    fraudulent mortgage document is proper.
    RULING

    The CA erred in upholding the dismissal of the Annulment


    Case on the ground of forum shopping.
    Thus, to determine whether a party violated the rule against
    forum shopping, it is essential to ask whether a final judgment
    in one case will amount to res judicata in another or whether
    the following elements of litis pendentia are
    present: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as
    representing the same interests in both actions; (b) identity
    of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being
    founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two (2)
    preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the
    other action will, regardless of which party is successful,
    amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.\

    The Court finds that Galang correctly declared in the Amended


    Complaint in the Annulment Case that she did not
    commence any action or proceeding which involves the same
    causes of actions, reliefs, and issues in any court, tribunal, or
    agency at the time she filed the said Amended Complaint, or
    anytime thereafter. In this light, there is no litis pendentia, as
    the cases essentially involve different causes of actions, reliefs,
    and issues. Thus, any judgment rendered in one will not
    necessarily amount to res judicata in the action under
    consideration. This holds true even if the complaint in
    the Annulment Case was subsequently amended by Galang.

    Thus, a revival of the Annulment Case and its remand to RTC


    is proper.

    You might also like